Hangin' With Haskin : Zenyatta

The Answer Man to the Rescue

Blood-Horse Staff — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:48:00 GMT

With more than 400 responses on my last blog, and with some of the posters a bit overzealous in expressing their opinions, it is obvious the Horse of the Year debate is going to continue to heat up as we get closer to the Eclipse Awards.

I have stated my feelings and have nothing more to say on the matter, as far as what is right and what is wrong. In the grand scheme of things, it’s really not an earth-shattering topic, but one that apparently has hit the nerve center of the American racing fan.

What I will do is address some of the comments by posters, many of which denigrate the “other” horse, and at least attempt to put them in some kind of perspective. So, playing devil’s advocate, here are my responses.

“Rachael Alexandra was fully extended to beat Macho Again and Mine That Bird--two ordinary horses:”

The quality of one’s competition in a particular race should be based not on an opponent’s overall record, but on the form he or she is in at the time. That is why there have been major upsets throughout history – a superstar getting beat by an inferior opponent who is in the form of his or her life on that day. In the Woodward, Rachel Alexandra defeated two horses – Macho Again and Bullsbay -- who were in the form of their lives, having finished one-two in the Whitney (gr. I). Macho Again on his best day was good enough to win the Stephen Foster (gr. I), New Orleans Handicap (gr. II), Jim Dandy (gr. II), Derby Trial (gr. III), and finish second to Big Brown in the Preakness (gr. I). Rachel Alexandra on Woodward day defeated a good older horse who was in the best form of his life, as was Bullsbay, who was coming off a 107 Beyer in the Whitney. Denigrating a 3-year-old filly’s accomplishment of defeating solid older horses in early September is not based on anything logical. As for Mine That Bird, he also was in the best form of his life coming off his Kentucky Derby demolition and ran another terrific race in the Preakness. The Mine That Bird Rachel Alexandra defeated was not the Mine That Bird we saw struggle in the Breeders’ Cup Classic over a track he ran horribly over last year.

“A Horse of the Year has to show up – Zenyatta:”

Show up for what? A self-proclaimed “World Championships” that does not decide “World” championships? And run on a synthetic surface? Does showing up for one big race mean more than showing up for several big races from May to September at seven different racetracks, stepping way out of the box against males on three occasions?

“Why do you think Zenyatta was not scheduled to race against Rachel when there were so many opportunities? It's because they knew for months Rachel would never run on the polycrap at SA and they would have their only argument:”

Whatever articulate and poetic word you wish to use for synthetic surfaces, Zenyatta was scheduled to ship to Belmont Park to run in the Beldame Stakes had Rachel Alexandra showed up. All the arrangements had been made. But when it was decided after the Woodward to retire Rachel for the year that plan was scrapped and she ran in the Lady’s Secret instead.

“Zenyatta only beat grass horses, a couple of synthetic horses, and dirt horses that didn’t like the track:”

Only beat grass horses? You mean like Raven’s Pass and Henrythenavigator? If the Pro-Ride favors grass horses, why knock her for beating the best grass horse in America? No one knows for sure that Summer Bird didn’t like the track. He was only beaten three lengths. Doesn’t closing her last quarter in :23 flat, while being angled out several paths during the stretch run, suggest she ran a fantastic race, running down a closer who was running a winning race himself? Why would anyone want to ignore the fact she defeated eight grade I-winning males from three countries?

“Why do you think Rachel was not scheduled for the Breeders? Um. No chance of beating the mare:”

This must have been written by Jess Jackson or someone close enough to him to know the real reason Rachel did not run in the Breeders’ Cup. How else could someone be that authoritative? He obviously has first-hand knowledge of the situation.

“How many times did Rachel Alexandra race in California? This is the better question:”

None. And this is the better question?

“The East couldn't win on the racetrack, but they're going to do their best to beat us on paper. HOY is so East Coast biased. It makes me wanna puke:”

Beat US? Glad to see the West Coast isn’t biased at all. And who doesn’t like a good conspiracy once in a while? I must admit the Eclipse Award voting may very well be slanted toward the East in numbers, but not to the point where it would make me wanna take such drastic measures.

“Zenyatta took the best males by their throats and didn't let them up. She is the Horse of the Year. Bar none.”

This comment was from a poster by the name of Rachel Alexandra. Talk about a low self image.

“My vote for Horse of the Year: 1. Rachel Alexandra, 2. Summer Bird, 3. Gio Ponti:”

Signed Rachel Fan From Arkansas. Now that’s what I call a fan…and objective all the way. Take Zenyatta and just get rid of her altogether.

“Ghostzapper and/or Invasor are in this year's BC Classic (assume they handle the surface well). Does Zenyatta still run them down?”

And if she doesn’t?

“Zenyatta raced spectacularly in the Breeders Cup Classic, but that race was over what her connections have repeatedly said was her best surface.”

Sorry to have to correct you, but John Shirreffs has said all year that Zenyatta “tolerates” a synthetic surface, but it most definitely is not her favorite surface. Her favorite surface was Oaklawn Park’s dirt surface.

“What do you think about trying to take some of the subjectivity out of the HOY and some of the other categories. Let's have some governing body assign a point system to each GI stake race.”

The words ‘governing body’ and ‘assign’ mean one thing: you are creating subjectivity, not eliminating it.

“Beating dirt horses on a synthetic surface is like ME BEATING PETE SAMPRAS IN PING PONG:”

No offense, but my money is still on Peter Sampras.

“While Rachel has an impressive resume, the sport at its best is still about how a special horse can stir one's blood. Zenyatta's Classic just might be the most memorable ever run. I've not been that moved by a filly or mare since Ruffian. My HOTY is Zenyatta - by a heart.”

There is nothing wrong with voting from your heart if you so desire, but standing on the track after the Woodward and the Haskell, I can assure you that Rachel stirred the blood to a boil and moved the fans in attendance like they’ve never been moved before. I have never experienced noise after a race that reached the level of the Woodward. On the heart meter, this one’s a draw.

“Last time I voted for President, I didn't see an "either/both" option on the ballot. So man up and make a decision.”

You know, I was thinking the same thing. I just don’t see any difference between voting for the leader of the United States of America and Horse of the Year. And you’re right about having to man up. It takes a real man to decide which horse wins a statue. Ask Zenyatta and Rachel if they’d rather have the statue or a carrot.

This is just a small sampling of the comments, but you get the picture. I hope the Answer Man was of some help.

The third sampling goes like this:

“Rachel gets the Horse of the Year award.....No wait...Zenyatta...no Rachel...what a stupid predicament to be in.....they are both Horses of the Year.....”

“Horse of the Year should be about the extraordinary. I don’t see how anyone out there can say that label does not fit both these incredible horses and their accomplishments this year. I hope the voters step up and show the same class these horses have. It’s my feeling that if we don’t take this dual opportunity to acknowledge greatness, the only loser will be us.”

“I wanted to vote, but there was not a choice for BOTH, so I abstained. ;-)”

OK, combatants, re-assemble, and let the battle continue. But, please, this time, how about water pistols instead of Howitzers. Feel free to get each other a little wet, but let’s not blow anyone’s head off. The evil moderators await with their itchy little fingers firmly pressed on the delete button.

Horse of the Year: Stalemate

cdawahare — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:00:00 GMT

These are the final words from here on the Horse of the Year debate between racing's two monarchs, Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta. Unfortunately, only one likely will be crowned, but you can be sure both will rule in the hearts and minds of most racing fans.

What follows below is based on the facts, with a little emotion thrown in. But first, as one of those who would like to see both names permitted on the ballot, just to give voters as torn as I am that option, I feel compelled to comment on NTRA president Alex Waldrop's reasoning why he doesn't feel that would be appropriate. There is no evidence to support Waldrop's comment that it would guarantee both horses the award. If someone feels strongly about either horse, they will vote for that horse. If the majority vote for both horses, then that's what they feel should be the outcome. It's free will and free thinking, with no "manipulation" involved.

Continue reading this column or feel free to comment below.

Breeders' Cup Wrapup - Z One and Only

cdawahare — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:06:00 GMT

Over the course of the next week, we'll have several wrapups, going over different aspects of Breeders' Cup 2009, such as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, losing efforts in Breeders' Cup history, the rash of oddball winners, the much-discussed synthetic issue, holding the event at Santa Anita, the European success, Horse of the Year, the New York non-factor, and other items.

But let's face it; the 2009 Breeders' Cup will forever belong to Zenyatta. She picked it up off the ground and raised it over her head like Atlas holding up the world. No burden has proven too great for this magnificent mare, and you can bet people will be watching her swan song in the Breeders' Cup Classic (gr. I) for decades to come and will be getting goose bumps every time they do.

Continue reading this column or feel free to post your comments below.

It's Showtime

Blood-Horse Staff — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:14:00 GMT

OK, the curtain is about to go up for the revival of “My Cup Runneth Under.” Most of the audience is disgruntled. The cast is not as strong as it should be; the stage is poorly constructed; the ensemble is too large with too many amateurs; the producer should have moved the show to a different venue.

Everyone is bitching and complaining, and there are the constant cries of what might have been had the show opened at one of the palatial theaters in New York or Louisville. OK, so most agree the producers messed up.

The audience starts to squirm as the curtain rises. The boos are ready to be hurled at the first faux pas. The stage lights go on and the show begins. At that moment, all else is forgotten. People realize they have paid good money for their seats and they’re going to try their best to enjoy the performances. The actors are all pros and they deliver their lines with aplomb and belt out one big musical number after another. The audience laughs and cries and cheers. All the “what might have beens” are booted out the stage door into the alley. For that moment, as Shakespeare would say, “The play’s the thing.”

This scenario by now should be sounding familiar. Anyone who has moaned and groaned about this year’s Breeders’ Cup, mainly running it over a synthetic surface at the same track for the second straight year, is justified in doing so. But it’s time to suck it up, put all gripes on the back burner, and enjoy the show that is going to be put on at Santa Anita on Nov. 6 and 7. All we can do at this point is hope it lives up to last year’s performances, even though many walked away feeling the leading actor, Curlin, was unnecessarily upstaged by lesser talent.

But that was then. It is time to concentrate on this year, with or without Rachel Alexandra and Sea the Stars. Some of the great performances in the history of the theater were turned in by understudies, not to suggest that Zenyatta and many of the others who will be on display are stand-ins to anybody. If Zenyatta should win the BC Classic or even the Ladies Classic, you can expect a standing ovation worthy of the sport’s greatest champions.

After this year, with all favors paid in full, the Breeders’ Cup will return to good old terra firma for several years at least. Who knows if there even will be 14 races any longer? Yes, some horses have missed out performing on dirt on the world’s biggest stage. That is their misfortune. But Rachel Alexandra will be given another chance next year, as will this year’s other Triple Crown heroes Summer Bird and Mine That Bird, although there is nothing to say the two “Birds” won’t be able to perform at the highest level this year. That is still to be determined. But even if they are not, at least we know, barring injury, they will be back next year to face Rachel.

For now, get your program, sit back in your seat, and enjoy the show. It’s the only one in town.

A Greatness of Her Own

cdawahare — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:20:00 GMT

It is midnight on Sunday. Tomorrow morning, I'm off to Saratoga. I had no blog planned for this week, even if Zenyatta won the Clement Hirsch, due to time restrictions and last-minute packing. But Zenyatta's performance cannot go unmentioned.

Let's face it, there are Rachel Alexandra goosebumps and there are Zenyatta goosebumps. They both send the same chills down your spine, but are triggered by different types of feats that bear little resemblance to each other.

Rachel Alexandra always puts herself in position to win, so it is her dominance over her rivals and amazing displays of brilliance that take your breath away. Zenyatta is just the opposite. Although she has your heart pounding a long way out, it was in the Clement Hirsch that she really had it racing, and proved a head victory can tell as much about a horse's greatness as a 10-length win.

The bottom line is, Zenyatta should not have won the Hirsch. When you're last in a field that is strung out a dozen lengths, and then they wind up going three-quarters in a sloth-like 1:13 3/5, and you're still 4 1/2 lengths back at the eighth pole, and you have to come home in :23 1/5 and then a final sixteenth in about :05 3/5, and you get there, there is no doubt you are something special. And let's remember that the runner-up, Anabaa's Creation, had won her only start on a synthetic surface since coming to America and was a classy filly in France, where she finished in the first four in six group races, including two group Is.

Although the Hirsch is a far cry from the Marlboro Cup, you have to admit that Zenyatta looked an awful lot like Forego when he closed like the proverbial "freight train" out in the middle of the track to beat Honest Pleasure right on the wire in 1976. The great ones know how to win.

Zenyatta is a great champion. Rachel Alexandra is a great champion. It's reached a point where I don't care whether they meet or not. That's just me; I don't want to see either one get beat. Yes, it would be great for the sport, but there's a lot to be said for Rachel running the table the rest of the year and being named Horse of the Year and Zenyatta also running the table and retiring undefeated in 14 or 15 starts.

In 1988, Personal Ensign, despite winning the Breeders' Cup Distaff over Kentucky Derby winner Winning Colors in one of the most thrilling finishes ever witnessed, lost out to Alysheba for Horse of the Year honors.

In 1983, the outstanding French filly All Along was voted Horse of the Year in the United States. In 2002, the brilliant Azeri also won the coveted Horse of the Year award.

Both All Along and Azeri were magnificent champions, certainly two of the best fillies of modern times. But ask yourself this question: Of the three aforementioned fillies, which one made a larger impact on history and will be remembered as one of the greats of all time?

It is the opinion here that the vast majority of people would answer Personal Ensign. I did not include another Horse of the Year, Lady's Secret, because of all her monumental achievements over a prolonged period of time and racing consistently against the best colts in the country.

The point here is, retiring undefeated, while racing at the upper level of the sport, carries with it an aura of invincibility, the stuff of which legends are born. Yes, everyone in racing has been clamoring for a match-up between Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra. But, as that seems unlikely to happen, let's look at the plain truth regarding Zenyatta's place in history, excluding the fact that 11 of her 12 races have come on a synthetic surface.

If this mountain of a mare wins the remainder of her races, assuming at least one will be against males, and retires with an unbeaten record of, let's say, 14-for-14 or 15-for-15 and loses out to Rachel Alexandra for Horse of the Year, does anyone really believe that another Eclipse statue, even the granddaddy of them all, is going to add that much to Zenyatta's place in history?

If Alysheba had lost the Breeders' Cup Classic, would Personal Ensign winning Horse of the Year made much of a difference, if any, how she has been perceived over the decades and where she ranks among the sport's greatest fillies? Ruffian, for all intents and purposes, retired undefeated and was never Horse of the Year, and never even defeated males. Has that diminished her stature in the slightest? I didn't say accomplishments, I said stature.

This certainly is not meant to imply that Zenyatta retiring undefeated is going to overshadow Rachel Alexandra in any way. No one is capable of overshadowing a filly who could be one of the truly greats of all time. If she continues her astounding feats, some will call her the greatest ever and it would be hard to argue with them. But that doesn't mean Zenyatta won't have earned her own place in history.

Regardless of whether you're a Rachel fan or a Zenyatta fan, and regardless which one you feel is better, what's important is that we have two great females running this year, moving along on parallel roads with no intersections in sight. You can plead with Jess Jackson and Jerry Moss all you want. Each has his own agenda, and each must be respected for doing what he believes is best for his filly, whether you agree or not. And, please, no sympathy for the Breeders' Cup for reasons that are obvious.

This also is not meant to dissuade those clamoring for a match between the two. Keep on clamoring. The interest it would generate would be unprecedented in modern times. But try to see the bright side if it doesn't happen, which seems more likely at this point.

Remember, this is being written at midnight, only a few hours after the Hirsch, while still in knee-jerk mode, and with Saratoga on my mind. But, through my muddled brain I just have to conclude, thank goodness for Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta. Racing needs them both, and the fans need them both, so let's just enjoy them both.

Rachel vs. Zenyatta - How to Make it Happen

cdawahare — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:32:00 GMT

Everyone wants to see a showdown between Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta. Although people do change their minds, as Jess Jackson did last year with Curlin, there are issues involved here that make it improbable it's going to happen.

But there is a way to overcome those issues, which we'll get to later.

Let's first discuss the principals involved. The owners of both horses have proven to be sportsmen and would love to see them square off. But, when it comes to meeting in either New York or California they each have their reasons for going their separate ways.

Jess Jackson, majority owner of Rachel Alexandra, has stated emphatically he does not like "plastics," as he refers to synthetic surfaces, and will not send Rachel to the Breeders' Cup, run for the second year in a row on Santa Anita's Pro-Ride surface. John Shirreffs, trainer of Zenyatta, does not like detention barns, based on his two previous experiences.

Jackson has bad memories of Curlin's defeat in last year's Classic, which he blames on the surface, whether you agree or not. And Shirreffs has bad memories of Giacomo and Tiago boiling over and losing their composure in the detention prior to their respective appearances in the Belmont Stakes. Even though none of these issues has anything to do with the Rachel (who has already won impressively on a synthetic surface) and Zenyatta (who has never been in a detention barn), you can't blame the parties involved for the way they feel. It's just the way it is. Neither is ducking the other.

As for Jackson, many believe Curlin, who worked brilliantly over the Pro-Ride surface between races before last year's Breeders' Cup, simply was over the top by race day. He made an explosive move around the turn to challenge for the lead, but tired in the stretch. Did he really not care for the track on that day or did his long stay in Dubai and four subsequent starts, three of which were far from strolls in the park, finally catch up with him at the three-sixteenths pole of the Classic? No one can say with certainty whether his two struggles against questionable opponents in the Woodward and Jockey Club Gold were a hint that he was heading in the wrong direction or whether he indeed was compromised by the track at Santa Anita. The one thing few can argue with is that the Curlin of last year's Woodward and JC Gold Cup was not the Curlin of the 2007 Breeders' Cup Classic or Dubai World Cup. But bad memories make people apprehensive about repeating the incidents that caused them, and Jackson does not want to experiment with another superstar and risk damaging their reputation after having been burned once already. Whether Jackson is right or wrong in his dismissal of the Breeders' Cup, he is not willing to find out this time. Some will agree with his decision; many will not. All that matters as far as Rachel Alexandra is concerned is what he believes and how strongly he believes it.

In the case of Shirreffs and the Mosses, it is the same principal. They also have bad memories. They saw two placid colts lose their composure in the detention barn, and do not want to risk Zenyatta's undefeated record and jeopardize her chances in the Breeders' Cup, and then regret their decision if she suffers the same fate. We've already witnessed how intense Zenyatta often gets before a race, and the detention barn, following a 3,000-mile trip, could very well prove to be a bad experience for a mare who has basically spent her entire career running out of her own barn and going through the same relaxed routine. Shirreffs may feel it is kind of late now to disrupt that routine in such dramatic fashion and then have another cross-country trip back home. Once again, whether we agree or not, we have to respect his and the Mosses' decision.

So, we could move on and concentrate on the races in which Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra will run. They are pretty ambitious as it is, with Rachel heading for another date with the boys in either the Haskell or Travers, and Zenyatta looking at the Breeders' Cup Classic. Those races alone should provide us with enough thrills to last for a long time.

Most owners would not have even kept Zenyatta in training at age 5 after all she accomplished last year. Most owners would not have run Rachel in the Preakness. So, although it looks at this point as if we won't be getting the main course we've all been craving for, you can't dismiss all the exquisite dishes we've already been treated to and the ones still to come.

Now, comes the possible solution; one option that hasn't been discussed, but is worth mentioning, just for the heck of it. But if the two parties involved really...I mean really...want a showdown, what if Monmouth Park, which does not require horses to go into a detention barn, moves the date of the Molly Pitcher back a week to Sept. 5, giving Zenyatta four weeks from the Clement Hirsch, instead of three? If the 1 1/16 miles is too short, Monmouth has proven to be one of the more accommodating tracks and can easily move it to 1 1/8 miles. If the $300,000 purse is not lucrative enough, Monmouth, despite not being in the greatest financial situation, has provided enough incentives in the past to raise it to at least $500,000 if that's what it is required to get it done, although the feeling here is that the purse would not be that relative to sportsmen like Jackson and the Mosses. Under normal circumstances, Jackson likely wouldn't think of running Rachel in a grade II race, but this would far transcend the grade of the race.

Monmouth, after suffering horrible luck with the weather in the 2007 Breeder' Cup, brings back good memories for Jackson, who saw Curlin nail down Horse of the Year in the Classic. You can bet track management would go overboard in promoting this race, which would be a rousing close to the summer season at the Jersey Shore. What a way for the thousands of college kids who rent homes in nearby Belmar and other towns to celebrate one last time before heading back to school.

So, you would have Rachel and Zenyatta meeting on the dirt at a neutral track in front of young, enthusiastic fans who are known for giving equine stars a rousing welcome in the Haskell Invitational. Just ask the connections of Big Brown or Point Given or Funny Cide or War Emblem or Curlin.

Now, here's the kicker. If Rachel defeats Zenyatta, she likely would be voted Horse of the Year, and could then prepare for her 4-year-old campaign if Jackson and Asmussen decide to end the year on a high note. She would have nothing more to prove. If, however, Zenyatta defeats Rachel, don't you think there's a good chance that Jackson, despite his feelings for synthetic surfaces, would feel he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by seeking out Zenyatta for a revenge match in the Breeders' Cup?

As a side note, a meeting between the two fillies in the Ladies Classic would have negative repercussions, but we certainly could live with it. Imagine the number of disgruntled fans and the complaints directed at the Breeders' Cup for having a race of that magnitude on a Friday with 20,000 fewer fans in attendance and one-third the TV audience. Imagine having to settle Horse of the Year on a weekday when people on the West Coast are working and people in the Midwest and East are either coming home from work or eating dinner? It worked out well last year, because a dominant Zenyatta was given her own spotlight, befitting a star of her stature, even if there were fewer people in attendance and watching on TV. But when you have the sport's two biggest superstars clashing for Horse of the Year honors, you want that to be the main attraction on the biggest day of racing. But even if they do meet in a rematch in the Ladies Classic instead of the real Classic, we'll take it.

So, let Monmouth Park start putting the gears in motion. Crazier things have happened. I realize I'm grasping at straws. But what's the alternative?

Goodbye, Triple Crown; Hello, Breeders' Cup

Blood-Horse Staff — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:48:00 GMT

As one final thought regarding Calvin Borel, in my Triple Crown wrapup I said it was learned that Borel attempted to get mounts during Belmont week, but was unable to secure any. I qualified that by adding, “If that is true…” Just for the record, this is what I was told by someone close to Borel. Although, as I also wrote, “It’s hard to believe,” I felt, because of all the criticism directed at Borel, I owed it to him to mention it in case it was true. Conflicting comments made earlier from the Borel camp recently came to light, so, it is up to the reader (if anyone still cares) to decide what they want to believe.

OK, enough of Borel; it’s time to move on to more important things and leave this wacky Triple Crown in the rear-view mirror. There’s a long road ahead of us, and we can already faintly see the tops of the San Gabriel Mountains way off in the distance.

To show how much the sport is changing, look at the results of last year’s Breeders’ Cup Classic, with European invaders Raven’s Pass and Henry the Navigator running one-two on the synthetic surface. Look at the switch from dirt to synthetic for the new Meydan track set to open next year in Dubai. Despite having no breakdowns over the dirt at Nad al Sheba and the races being run a fast track each year, even on the rare occasions when the monsoons roll in, it seems odd that they would switch surfaces. They do so knowing there is a good chance the majority of big-name American horses who have excelled only on the dirt likely will pass on the World Cup, despite its big bucks.

Could it be they have had enough of Americans dominating the World Cup and are looking to lure more big-name Europeans like Raven’s Pass and Henry the Navigator? That wouldn’t make much sense, considering it is the Americans and the Dubai-based horses who have been in training and are able to prep for the World Cup, while European racing is just getting started in mid-March, and their horses would have to travel to Dubai in February (not likely) in order to find a suitable prep race.

This is not to insinuate the switch of surfaces is a good one or a bad one, just an odd one under the circumstances. Obviously the powers that be felt this was the way to go. Would Curlin have gone all the way there to run on a synthetic surface? Who knows, maybe a $10-million purse would lure anyone, especially with the luxuries that await all the participants, both human and equine.

Speaking of the new wave of Europeans that have been and will be washing up on our synthetic tracks, John Oxx, trainer of Two Thousand Guineas and English Derby winner Sea the Stars has already said the Breeders’ Cup Classic is a possibility for the son of Cape Cross.

“The Breeders' Cup this year and last year is slightly different to previous years because it's run on a Polytrack-type surface,” Oxx said. “I would never ask a 3-year-old to run on the traditional American dirt, but obviously the new surface is a bit more tempting.”

After last year’s European coup, we’d better start producing more quality older horses and keep our 3-year-olds in training longer if we want to avoid the ignominious turn of events that befell us in the 2008 Classic.

European bookmakers Stan James and Coral have already shown their lack of respect for the American horses by installing Sea the Stars as the favorite, at 5-1 and 6-1, respectively, for the Breeders’ Cup Classic. Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra are the second and third choices, ranging from 7-1 to 9-1. Well Armed, who destroyed his field in this year’s Dubai World Cup is listed at 12-1 and 10-1, respectively, while Kentucky Derby winner Mine That Bird is 14-1 with Corals and Belmont Stakes winner Summer Bird is 20-1 with Stan James, as is Einstein, who many consider to be America’s main hope for the Classic, having already won the Santa Anita Handicap over the Pro-Ride surface. Imagine, a European 3-year-old in June at 5-1 and Einstein at 20-1. And it also shows how wide a chasm the Europeans feel exists between their Derby winner and our Derby winner.

Having been overwhelmed by the Europeans on the grass (Conduit, Goldikova, Donativum, Eagle Mountain, and Westphalia) last year, as well as in the Classic, it is imperative that we stop the onslaught this year by finding enough quality synthetic horses or accept this rude wake-up call and just wait until next year when the Classic returns to the friendly confines of dirt, and we can once again showcase our best horses or the best of whatever is still around.

It is a shame that Fabulous Strike, arguably the fastest sprinter in the country, has to either run once again on a surface over which he is not as effective or wait until next year, at age 7, to have a legitimate shot at a Breeders' Cup victory. And he's not alone. Until then we'll have to make the best of another turf/synthetic Breeders' Cup. I actually enjoyed seeing two classy Europeans run so well in the Classic to give the race more international meaning, but I would rather see them run well on dirt against our best horses on their best surface. The Euros are entitled to have the playing field leveled on occasion, just not two years in a row. It's not fair to our best horses.

On the Friday front, good luck to the Europeans trying to find a filly to stop the Zenyatta Express. And if for some reason Rachel Alexandra finds her way to Santa Anita…forget it, I’m not even going there. Whether she runs in the Ladies or the good old fashioned Classic, it is too mouth-watering a proposition to even mention this early.

And how about a supporting cast of Music Note, Cocoa Beach (synthetic or turf), Seattle Smooth, Seventh Street, Life is Sweet, Acoma, and 3-year-olds
Justwhistledixie, Four Gifts, and Stardom Bound (who is doing well on the farm and expected back to the track in several weeks).

Next week’s Royal Ascot meet, always one of the great weeks of racing anywhere, should produce several additional Breeders’ Cup prospects, including Aidan O’Brien’s Irish Two Thousand Guineas winner Mastercraftsman, who runs in the St. James’s Palace Stakes. It was quite a sight seeing four O’Brien horses finish in a photo for second in the Epsom Derby. You can bet O’Brien will be back at Santa Anita in full force with 3-year-old colts Mastercraftsman, Fame and Glory (second in the Derby), Masterofthehorse (third), Rip Van Winkle (fourth), and Golden Sword (fifth) to choose from.

Out With the Old

Blood-Horse Staff — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:53:00 GMT

So ends arguably the most tumultuous, controversial year in the annals of Thoroughbred racing. The sport no doubt is on the brink – of what we don’t quite know yet. But when PETA protests, congressional hearings, synthetic surface studies, steroids, and anti-horse slaughter bills, infiltrate our normally cloistered world and dim our kaleidoscope of vibrant colors you know change is in the air.

Most of the sport’s problems in 2008 were initiated within a five-week span, beginning only seconds after the Kentucky Derby and lasting until the final strides of the Belmont Stakes. Eight Belles’ horrific and freakish demise while pulling up after the Kentucky Derby started the firestorm that led to the unfortunate events that followed. A blink of an eye prior to that tragedy, the racing world was prepared to hoist Big Brown onto its most lofty throne. This was the hero, the unconquerable titan everyone had been waiting for. The Preakness put Big Brown on the threshold of history and made us forget about the PETA protests and its preposterous attacks directed at the sport and Eight Belles’ connections. Big Brown’s brilliant victory at least restored some of the sport’s tarnished image and had everyone now talking Triple Crown. Surely, there was no foe even in the same universe as Big Brown.

Then it all went wrong during the three weeks leading up to and including the Belmont Stakes, beginning with Big Brown’s untimely quarter crack. The media, mainly those outside the sport, went after Big Brown’s connections like sharks to blood. When they were finished digging through every trash heap they could find, they had made Mike Iavarone and Rick Dutrow look like the James gang. To have it all end in such an ignominious manner with the stretch run from hell put an unsavory end to what had started off as a journey to greatness.

Despite the farcical congressional hearings that followed, there were many memorable and passionate moments, with Curlin, Zenyatta, and Peppers Pride all gathering large fan bases across the country. Even though Big Brown returned to win two stakes before his untimely retirement, many fans just couldn’t see past his Belmont calamity and their perceived view of his connections.

Now, here we are about to embark on what promises to be another turbulent year. Racing did make great strides as a result of the events of 2008, and we can only hope it continues to move forward – both from a fan’s and a bettor’s standpoint. The sport has lost the majority of its print journalists, but perhaps we can get many of them back if we can find people who know how to sell and market the product effectively. So, here is one goal: find a way to get Sports Illustrated to actually write a positive article on racing. If we can do that, then perhaps the newspapers will follow.

That certainly isn’t going to happen with more quotes like this from Santa Anita president Ron Charles that appeared in DRF in response to the three fatal injuries in the first five days of the meet on the Pro-Ride surface:

“This track has been very safe for three months,” Charles said, referring to the successful Breeders’ Cup held here in October, “but the last week has been different from what we had. We want it back to the safe track we’ve had. It’s been so well received for three months. The last week has been difficult. It’s so hard to explain.”

Isn’t it about time we CAN explain it (better still not have anything to explain), just so we can inform the rest of the world we know what we’re doing, especially when we wind up re-living the same problems as last year at this time on the Cushion Track? Did we perhaps act too quickly in rushing into synthetic surfaces without knowing as much about their complexities and idiosyncrasies as we should have? I loved watching horses run in safety in the Breeders’ Cup, but there apparently is an instability and quirkiness to some of these surfaces we know little about. This is what the horsemen voted for, so let’s make our first New Year’s wish that the Pro-Ride surface return to the way it was last fall and that the maintenance people discover what went wrong and fix it…for good.

**********

Last week I conducted a poll of who the fans would vote for for Owner of the Year in order to see how that Eclipse category is perceived by the public. There are so many variables to this award, especially this year. Would the fans vote for accomplishment or would they vote from their heart and gut and take a more personal approach? The results were quite revealing:

1—Jess Jackson………………….28 votes
2—Joe Allen……………………....19 votes
3—Jerry and Ann Moss………….15.5 votes
4—IEAH Stables………………....15 votes
5—Rick Porter (Fox Hill)………....4 votes
6—Darley Stable……………….....3.5 votes

Also receiving votes were Zayat Stables, Hal Earnhardt, Roy and Gretchen Jackson, Marylou Whitney, Gary Tanaka, Tommy Kelly and Joe Grant, and Ken and Sarah Ramsey. Even Old Friends’ Michael Blowen, who doesn’t own horses, received a vote. Oddly enough, to demonstrate the fans’ perception of what an Eclipse Award-winning owner should be, Frank Stronach, the leading owner in the country by money won, did not receive a single vote.

Based on their explanations, voters determined that Jess Jackson deserved the award for keeping Curlin in training as a 4-year-old; Joe Allen deserved it for his handling of his homebred sensation Pepper’s Pride; Jerry and Moss for their class and all they’ve done for the sport, not to mention their handling of Zenyatta and Tiago; and Rick Porter mainly for the way he dealt with the Eight Belles tragedy and stormy aftermath. So, four of the top five finishers were based mostly on the owners themselves and their contributions to the sport rather than their actual accomplishments over the course of the year.

Perhaps the most revealing was the fourth-place finish of IEAH Stables, despite owning an amazing eight individual grade I winners who won 11 grade I stakes, including the Kentucky Derby and Preakness. Some acknowledged their great year, the building of a veterinary hospital outside Belmont Park, their charitable donations, and becoming the first owners to institute a no-drug policy, but still they looked elsewhere. Perhaps many couldn’t look past Iavarone’s bad press prior to the Belmont, or IEAH’s overall corporate image, or even their failure to put a leash on their outspoken and controversial trainer, Rick Dutrow. That last point apparently overshadowed the fact that IEAH won their eight grade I stakes with five different trainers – the others being Bill Mott, Bobby Frankel, Bob Holthus, and John Terranova. To reverse a line from the Godfather: It’s personal, Sonny, not business.”

One note about the actual Eclipse voting: The new online format has to change, because it shortchanged IEAH, and could very well cost them any shot at winning the award. The only listing for them on the drop-down part of the ballot is for IEAH Stables and Paul Pompa, meaning that it is strictly a vote for Big Brown’s owners, which many will be reluctant to do based on one horse. This ignores all the other horses IEAH owned with different partners. Not many are going to take it upon themselves to “write in” just IEAH Stables. Unless the NTRA combines IEAH and Pompa and IEAH as a write-in, they will have a split vote. The listing of IEAH and Pompa is based solely on the fact that they are the only ones who made the top 20 list of money-winning owners, and they were at No. 20.

As for Jess Jackson, the vast majority of voters said it was his keeping Curlin in training at 4 that earned him their vote. In today’s racing world, with its fans starving for some semblance of longevity from its heroes, that explanation certainly is acceptable. Those who have been around for a while remember not too long ago when it was unthinkable not to keep a horse in training at 4. But times have changed, due mostly to the obscene offers from breeders and a different class of owner. Gone are the private stables run by sportsmen who bred their own horses and took great pride and pleasure in seeing them race for several years. They have been replaced by mostly businessmen with a profit-first mentality. You can’t criticize someone for wanting to make money, so you just have to accept the new order of things. Jackson’s decision also was magnified by the early retirements of Street Sense, Hard Spun, and Any Given Saturday, and Curlin’s retirement would have totally decimated the 2008 4-year-old crop. Just try to imagine the older horse division without Curlin. In fact, try to imagine what the 2009 older horse division will be like without a star of his magnitude.

Some stated they did not vote for Jackson in the belief that his motives were not done in the nature of sportsmanship, but being in a precarious legal situation surrounding ownership of the horse. No one can get into Jackson’s head, so you either believe that or you don’t. Whatever the real reason, he did keep him in training and plotted an ambitious and uncharted course for Curlin. And when that didn’t work out, he went against his initial instincts and ran him in the Breeders’ Cup Classic on a synthetic surface, something he vowed all year he would not do. To say he did it for the good of the sport and for the fans sounds trite, but what other reason can there be? When Big Brown was injured it was left to Curlin to carry the entire load on his shoulders. Despite the way it turned out, try once again to imagine the Classic without Curlin. It would have been an awfully dark sky over Santa Anita with both those stars missing. And Jackson sent him there a month in advance, giving the Santa Anita fans plenty of opportunities to see the horse, especially when he worked in company between races.

Therefore, Curlin’s impact on the Breeders’ Cup transcended his fourth-place finish, and that was because of Jackson.

As for Joe Allen, it doesn’t seem as if his votes were directed at anything specific he did other than his handling of Peppers Pride over the course of her career and racing her after she had broken the unbeaten record held jointly by Cigar, Citation, and Hallowed Dreams, and Mister Frisky in Puerto Rico and the United States. Allen’s second-place finish appears to be the voters’ way of recognizing the filly’s extraordinary feat, which was accomplished over several years, not just 2008. She is not going to win any Eclipse Awards, nor is her trainer. So why not honor her through her owner? I could be wrong, but that’s just the way I interpreted the large number of votes he received. Again, in this day and age, you can’t find fault with that reasoning.

Jerry and Ann Moss? In the world of owners and breeders they are gods, so no reasons are necessary. To have someone as high-profiled in the outside world as Jerry Moss be as passionate about racing as he and Ann are is a major boost to the sport, and we should just bow in their presence. They are the epitome of the word class. And they hired a trainer and racing manager just as classy. When was the last time you saw a trainer and racing manager so compatible they married each other?

Again, I wish to thank everyone who voted. It made for some fascinating and lively discussion, and showed just where the mindset of the racing fan is these days.

**************

I must for the last time bring up the subject of Big Brown, who was caught in a maelstrom and swept away from the hearts and minds of many of his fans. Only in his two trips to Monmouth Park did he receive the love that had been lavished upon him earlier in the year.

I am not going to tread over the same ground I have in earlier blogs, nor am I going to repeat Big Brown’s extraordinary feats that seem to have been forgotten for the most part. I will say only this:

Having been involved in Thoroughbred racing for 40 years, I can count on my two hands the number of horses that had what the old-timers used to call “The Look of Eagles.” It is something indefinable, but you know it when you see it. It’s the stuff of movies and books…and legend. For whatever it’s worth, Big Brown was one of those rare Thoroughbreds that had the look of eagles. Forget about the Belmont Stakes and the supposedly inferior competition he faced all year (although five horses did come out of the Kentucky Derby to win grade I stakes last year, and the two older horses he defeated on the grass came back to win the grade II San Gabriel Handicap and finish second in the grade I Shadwell Mile).

This is strictly about the horse’s presence and the aura around him. There was true greatness in Big Brown. But unfortunately, his script was never completed, due mostly to bad feet and one inexplicable, nightmarish afternoon in early June. And make of his connections what you wish. That has no bearing on any of this. Who knows how differently the story would have played out had it not been for Eight Belles’ death. For the first time in history, the lustrous glow of the Kentucky Derby spotlight was dimmed by tragedy.

Some of the feats Big Brown accomplished likely will never be duplicated. And it is those feats that should be remembered above all else. This is not meant to convert his detractors or make a case for him as Horse of the Year. Curlin and Zenyatta are both worthy recipients of the honor. The only point I’m trying to make is that you had to be around Big Brown to fully appreciate just how special he was. Only then could you witness for yourself the look of eagles.

Happy New Year to all.

Debunking the Myths

Blood-Horse Staff — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:55:00 GMT

The Europeans whipped our butts in the Breeders’ Cup and are superior to American horses:

Winning 5 of 14 races does not constitute a butt-whipping. Granted, winning five of the 10 races in which they competed was impressive, but still not exactly a butt-whipping. Why shouldn’t the European horses win half their races? Isn’t that was international competition is all about, especially when we leveled the playing field for them? Did anyone really feel good seeing the Euros go 0-for-11 last year? That doesn’t make for good racing.

Let’s take them one at a time. The Europeans should beat us in the Juvenile Turf, at least for now. It may be our track, but it’s still their surface. Our 2-year-old turf horses are still evolving, and you’ll no doubt see better quality horses on the turf now that there is a Breeders’ Cup race for them, which will result in more enticing preps. Right now, they are still second and third-tier horses in the grand scheme of the 2-year-old picture. Remember, we did beat the Euros in the Juvenile Fillies Turf, defeating an Aidan O’Brien-trained filly who was coming off Group I and Group II Stakes. You also have to remember that Juvenile Turf winner Donativum was undefeated since being gelded and in his victory at Newmarket at 33-1, the horse he beat, Crowded House, came back and romped in a Group I stakes the morning of the Juvenile Turf.

As for Goldikova, she may be the best miler in the world, having already beaten Henrythenavigator, and even John Gosden admitted that Raven’s Pass would have had a hard time beating her in the BC Mile. She ran a spectacular race, and defeated last year’s Mile winner Kip Deville, who probably ran a better race this year than he did last year.

The BC Turf was nothing we haven’t seen many times before. The main difference is that this was an extremely weak year in America for mile and a half turf horses. We had a few nice horses, but no depth or consistency. We’ll only have a fighting chance against the Euros in years when we can come up with a brilliant, top-class grass horse like a Manila or an English Channel. At 12 furlongs, they’re simply much better than we are and always have been. If we’re getting sick of the Euros manhandling us year after year, then perhaps the American breeders should stop snubbing their noses at long-distance turf horses as if they were lepers that are going to infect their stallion roster. We exile our turf horses off to far-off stud farms and want no part of their offspring. Care to guess how many of the 14 living BC Turf winners at stud are standing in Kentucky? Two. The rest are in Ireland, England, Japan, South Africa, Illinois, and New York. Going farther back, even the great Manila was shipped off to Turkey. Fraise was sent to Japan. And Prized wound up at a small farm in Virginia. Let’s not forget that several our BC Turf winners, such as Kotashaan, Northern Spur, and Theatrical were bred in Europe. In addition, many of our best-bred young horses are bought by Coolmore and Godolphin, so they become European turf horses by circumstance more than anything else.

Finally, we come to the Pro-Ride races. Is anyone really surprised we were defeated in the Marathon? We basically sent mile and an eighth and mile and a quarter horses and turf horses against Euros who are just getting warmed up at a mile and a half. The winner, Muhannak, was four for seven, with a second and two thirds over a synthetic surface. Again, we have ourselves to blame. Do you think we’re ever going to send a grade I classic horse like Sixties Icon to the Marathon? Most of our Marathon horses this year were the ones who were not good enough to run in the Classic or the Turf. It is hoped that will change. We carded a number of 12-furlong “Win and Your In” races this year, but some of the more successful horses who competed in those races, like Evening Attire and Delosvientos, didn’t show up for the Breeders’ Cup. And by the way, don’t think the Euros aren’t laughing behind our backs for calling a mile and a half a marathon.

As for the Classic, which was the impetus for all the hyperbole, let’s face facts. Raven’s Pass and Henrythenavigator were superstar milers over demanding courses in Europe and both had dirt pedigrees. They were fast, brilliant, and had powerful closing kicks, and were racing over a synthetic surface that played more like turf, with a good bounce and virtually no kickback. But mostly, with the exception of Curlin, our horses simply were too slow this year, if you go by all the speed figures. And many feel Curlin, for whatever reason, was not as dominant and brilliant this year as he was last year when he was running against far superior horses. Combine that with the strange surface, having only one five-furlong work and two slow half-mile breezes in four weeks and then running 10 furlongs over a synthetic track that demands fitness, and a quick early move around horses that did not set him up well for the final quarter mile against the late-kicking Europeans. Although his work pattern did not differ from his previous 10-furlong races, he’d never run over this surface, and most everyone in California and at other tracks that have synthetic surfaces agree you need a fit horse going long distances. Remember, the best finish by an American horse was Tiago, who worked a strong six furlongs and had a good effort over the surface.

Let’s also not forget that French-trained Arcangues, at 133-1, has already won the Classic, Swain should have won the Classic, Giant’s Causeway and Sakhee were beaten in photos by Tiznow, and 38-1 Ibn Bey was second, beaten only one length by Unbridled. Even a 3-year-old French filly (Jolypha) managed to finish third behind A.P. Indy and Pleasant Tap in the Classic. So, let’s not go into panic mode because two brilliant Europeans finished one-two over a synthetic surface in a sub-standard year.

Big Brown should not be considered for Horse of the Year because he beat a bunch of inferior horses this year:

Isn’t there a bit of hypocrisy in that statement, considering the older horses Curlin defeated were just as mediocre? Granted, this was far from a top-class group of 3-year-olds, but if you’re going to completely discount Big Brown’s accomplishments because of that, then how do you account for the fact that two horses Big Brown trounced by 14 and 21 lengths in the Kentucky Derby – Colonel John and Smooth Air – finished 2 1/4 and 2 1/2 lengths, respectively, behind Curlin in the Classic, and only a half-length and three-quarters of a length behind Go Between, winner of the Pacific Classic and second in the Santa Anita Handicap and Hollywood Gold Cup? And they finished ahead of the winners of the Pimlico Special and Hawthorne Gold Cup, as well as a five-time Group I winner in Europe.

While on the subject, 22-1 shot Two Step Salsa, 19-1 My Pal Charlie, and 11-1 Pyro finishing third, fourth, and sixth in the Dirt Mile, ahead of Well Armed, Lewis Michael, and Surf Cat, wasn’t too shabby either..for a bad crop of 3-year-olds. The first two were beaten 1 3/4 lengths for all the money. And let’s also remember that Anak Nakal, who was beaten badly by Big Brown in the Derby, finished a fast-closing second to top older horse Arson Squad in the grade II Meadowlands Cup. So, while this year’s crop of 3-year-olds does not rank anywhere near last year’s crop, they certainly haven’t embarrassed themselves against their elders, and the horses Big Brown defeated went on to finish 1-3 in the Travers, 1-2 in the Jim Dandy, 1-3 in the Ohio Derby, 1-3 in the Swaps Stakes, 1-3 in the Pennsylvania Derby, 1-3 in the Northern Dancer, and first in King's Bishop.

Getting back to Big Brown’s record, can you simply ignore the fact that he earned the highest Thoro-Graph and Ragozin figures ever in the Kentucky Derby, faster than Secretariat, Monarchos, and Spend a Buck? He also ran the fourth fastest final Derby prep of all time, and the three who ran faster all regressed in the Derby, while Big Brown actually moved forward in the Derby.

I’m not saying Big Brown should be Horse of the Year. I’m just saying that perhaps his accomplishments require a second, more objective, look and be put in proper perspective. What he accomplished this past spring off only two career starts and very little training is pretty remarkable. Based on that and all his missed training after the Preakness due to a foot injury, a meltdown prior to the Belmont, a terrible trip early in the race, and getting part of his shoe pulled off at the start, does anyone really believe that race was not a total aberration? And how many Derby and Preakness winners in recent times have won two stakes (in two starts) following the Triple Crown? Did he defeat any worse horses in the Haskell than Point Given did? Have any two-time Classic winners defeated three grade II stakes winners on the turf, and in only his second career start on grass? I know Shakis finished last in the BC Mile, but he was making a big move along the inside when a tiring Thorn Song closed up the rail on him and backed up into him and Alan Garcia had to stop riding him the last eighth of a mile. In his prior start he was a fast-closing second in the grade I Shadwell Turf Mile at Keeneland.

I am only attempting to defend Big Brown because of all the unwarranted animosity directed toward the horse for whatever reason. Now that I’ve done my best to make my case, I can remove my hand out of the hornet’s nest for good.

(See my final comments regarding this at the end of the blog)

Soldier of Fortune needed a pacesetter in the Breeders’ Cup Turf:

Yeah, like the proverbial hole in the head, as it turned out. What 8-5 favorite needs a 66-1 pacesetter to go six furlongs in 1:10 1/5 in a mile and a half race when he’s going to be crawling up his behind most of the way? What was that all about? He’s lucky he didn’t clip his pacesetter’s heels. And when was the last time you saw a European horse take over the lead in a 12-furlong race after a mile and a quarter in 1:58 3/5?

So, what happens? They go out and do it again in the Melbourne Cup, as the two fancied Ballydoyle horses, including second favorite Septimus, spent most of the two miles chasing their own pacesetter, opening up on the rest of the field. By the time they came to the head of the stretch they were spent.

Canada is no place to prep for the Breeders’ Cup:

If you think that, wait until next year. The following horses all raced at Woodbine this summer and fall: Ventura (winner of the Filly & Mare Sprint), Forever Together (winner of the Filly & Mare Turf), Kip Deville (second in the Mile), Fatal Bullet (second in the Sprint), Sealy Hill (second in the Filly & Mare Turf), Laragh (third in the Juvenile Fillies Turf), and Storm Treasure (third in the Turf Sprint).

Other thoughts:

-- Let’s go one step further regarding the 3-year-old crop. How about Fatal Bullet, the only 3-year-old in the Sprint, finishing second to Midnight Lute, while running his six furlongs in 1:07 2/5 in defeat and finishing open lengths ahead of Street Boss, Fabulous Strike, In Summation, and First Defence.

-- Did Godolphin cost themselves the 3-year-old filly Eclipse Award by finishing second with Cocoa Beach over Music Note? There’s no guarantee Music Note would have won the championship over Proud Spell had she finished second in the Ladies Classic instead of third, and she still may get it, but a second to Zenyatta would have looked awfully good on her record to go along with wins in the grade I CCA Oaks, Mother Goose, and Gazelle, and a head defeat (to Proud Spell) in the Alabama, in which she was victimized by a slow pace. It will be interesting to see how the voting goes.

Sheikh Mohammed, who, with Godolphin, Darley, and his wife Princess Haya, won the Classic (with Raven’s Pass), the Juvenile (with Midshipman), the Juvenile Turf (with Donativum), and was second and third in the Ladies Classic and second in the Turf Sprint with Diabolical.

-- Although he finished eighth, how about a round of applause for 9-year-old Better Talk Now, who was making his fifth consecutive start in the Breeders’ Cup Turf. Along the way, he’s picked up a win, a second, and a fourth for earnings of $1,793,000.

Final myth: The few people who keep sparring with each other on these blogs about Curlin and Big Brown, spewing out the same venom ad nauseum, will have all such comments on this particular blog deleted:

Sorry, this is not a myth and will not be debunked. All the nastiness directed at the two horses and most of all at the supporters of each one has been heard countless times, even on blogs that are not about them. I can’t believe it started again on Jason’s interview with Shirreffs. I stepped up on my soapbox one last time to make what I felt were valid points about Big Brown. That will end all comments on him and Curlin by me…and by several other people. My only point is that all three horses warrant at least discussion for Horse of the Year. I am not sure who I’m voting for that this point. The best cases obviously can be made for Curlin and Zenyatta. I just don’t feel Big Brown should be totally ignored after what he accomplished over a seven-month period. So, if I am exacerbating the situation, I apologize to those with level heads and open minds who no longer want to be subjected to the mud-slinging that follows every innocuous comment about the two horses. Anyone is free to comment on the points I made about Big Brown, whether pro or con, but those who indulge in the same tiresome Big Brown--Curlin trench fighting again will not have their comments posted.

Horse of the Year Follies

Blood-Horse Staff — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:53:00 GMT

So, will it be Curlin or Zenyatta for Horse of the Year? That is the question everyone – fans, writers, horsemen – either seem to be asking or are adamant about one way or the other. Obviously, a case can be made for either one.

But I have to admit I am flabbergasted that not a single person I’m aware of has even thrown Big Brown into the mix. Now I know he’s not going to be voted Horse of the Year or likely even come close, due to a variety of reasons, many of them fueled by a dislike for the horse’s trainer and/or owner. Others simply feel he beat up on inferior competition all year.

But don’t we at least owe it to the horse and his remarkable accomplishments to place him in the same category as Curlin, who also beat up on inferior competition all year, and Zenyatta, who…nah, I’m not saying anything negative about her. Curlin supporters claim she’s never run against colts, so we’ll just use that one for the sake of fairness.

These are three special horses, and knocking one to enhance another is like chopping Thomas Jefferson’s nose off on Mount Rushmore to make George Washington look better.

I am not going to spew out the same litany of praises for Big Brown that I’ve been doing all year. Most of it falls on deaf ears anyway, and there is no further reason to sound like a defense attorney constantly telling a hostile jury what a fine, upstanding citizen his client is.

We all know that Big Brown’s accomplishments earlier in the year were unlike anything we’ve ever seen. No one has put together performances like the Florida Derby, Kentucky Derby, and Preakness with so little foundation and experience. The bottom line is, he never lost a race he finished, and the fact that he returned after a physically and mentally demanding Triple Crown to win both his starts, in a grade I and on the turf, shows what an extraordinary horse he was, competition aside.

But enough of that, as I can already feel the fumes beginning to build up from the Curlin fans. Everyone has been trying to figure out what happened to Curlin in that last quarter of a mile in the Classic. There are several theories, but we’re never going to know for sure.

Some feel he’s not as good as he was last year. I can’t disagree with that. Some feel he was undertrained for a 10-furlong race over a synthetic surface. I can’t disagree with that either, although I certainly don’t know the horse like Steve Asmussen does; he’s done nothing wrong so far in his training of Curlin. Asmussen, however, admits he doesn’t have a handle on synthetics yet, and the trainers that do all seem to believe you need to have a horse dead-fit to run well over it, and most work their horses at least six furlongs before a distance race. Was Curlin fit enough for a synthetic Classic with only one serious five-furlong work and a couple of slow half-mile breezes in four weeks? Beats me, but it’s at least worth throwing out there. Some feel the six-week trip to Dubai, during which Curlin made his 2008 debut under 132 pounds and then came back four weeks later in the World Cup, had a long-range effect on him. Who knows? Remember, Cigar came back from Dubai and won his first two races and then lost three of his last four.

If Curlin wasn’t the same horse as last year, why wasn’t he? We all know horses are supposed to get better at four. One factor that has not been brought out, and this pertains to Big Brown as well, is that Curlin was taken off steroids this year. Many veterinarians will tell you that has nothing to do with anything. I wouldn’t know; I’m just going by my observations, which are shared by many.

When majority owner Jess Jackson found out Curlin had been using Winstrol regularly last year, he had Asmussen discontinue its use in January in order to prove that the horse was every much a champion without drugs, which in turn would increase his appeal as a stallion. I don’t claim to know much if anything about the effect of steroids on horses. I do find it interesting, however, that Curlin, while still a magnificent horse, wasn’t quite as dominant and brilliant after being taken off Winstrol. The same with Big Brown, who still proved he was a fantastic, gutsy horse after being taken off the drug, but didn’t display the same dominance and brilliance he did when he was using it. Make of that what you wish. I am not giving an opinion, because I have no scientific basis to do so. I’m just stating the facts and what I, and most everyone, witnessed on the racetrack. Yes, Curlin won the Dubai World Cup and Stephen Foster by open lengths, but compare that competition to Street Sense, Hard Spun, Any Given Saturday, and Lawyer Ron. By late summer, he was doing just what he had to to win by narrow margins against the likes of Past the Point and Wanderin Boy.

But none of that has anything to do with who should be Horse of the Year. Conceding the anti-Big Brown movement, as misguided as I believe it is, I won’t waste anyone’s time making a case for him, as I’ve done that ad nauseum over the last several months. Perhaps one day after the dust has been swept away everyone will look back with more objectivity and realize what a special horse this was.

As for Curlin, his Breeders’ Cup Classic should not in any way be held against him. Give Jackson major kudos for going against his and his trainer’s initial gut feeling and doing what was in the best interest of the fans and the sport. Jackson and Asmussen stated emphatically they did not want to make Curlin a guinea pig over a surface no one knew anything about. But the racing world clamored for a Curlin – Big Brown showdown, and Jackson let them have it, even though it went against every principal he believed. The showdown didn’t happen, but imagine the Classic without either one of them. Curlin’s mere presence at Santa Anita made the Breeders’ Cup. When he worked between races it was like an unexpected visit from Elvis. Let’s be honest, if Curlin wasn’t in the Breeders’ Cup, would it have had anywhere near the buzz it did? Would any of the Classic horses have been given a rousing ovation in the paddock before the race, and more important, coming back afterwards in defeat?

Let’s just say hypothetically that Curlin wasn’t quite the same horse as last year for whatever reason. And let’s say he didn’t care for the synthetic surface quite as much as he did the dirt. And let’s just say he came up a bit short in that last quarter mile of the Classic. And let’s just say he was meeting far better competition than he did all year. The fact is he showed up under conditions less than ideal, gave the fans a big thrill with an explosive move on the far turn, and ran his heart out to the wire, while running the 1 1/4 miles in about 1:59 4/5, the fastest 10 furlongs he’s ever run. Two of the horses who beat him were superstars in Europe, and may have been even more formidable at this distance and on this surface.

With everything, Curlin had an unbelievable year. He paved new frontiers by going to Dubai for six weeks, attempted the near-impossible by pointing for the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe, which didn’t quite work out, and ventured into unknown territory by attempting to win America’s richest race over a surface on which he’d never raced. With all that, he still won the Dubai World Cup, Stephen Foster, Woodward Stakes, and Jockey Club Gold Cup, regardless of the competition. Was that insufficient to retain the crown he already wore? Did Zenyatta do enough to dethrone an existing king who did little wrong over an eight-month period?

I have to admit it is too early to state emphatically who I am voting for.

I love Zenyatta. I loved being around her before and after the Breeders’ Cup, as evidenced by the 200-plus photos I took of her arriving at Santa Anita and back at the barn following the Ladies Classic. I believe she is one of the greatest fillies in the history of the sport, because of her dramatic machine-like performances race after race, and because her running style always makes her vulnerable to pace and a freakish front-running effort. I think John Shirreffs, his wife Dottie, and Jerry and Ann Moss are four of the finest people I’ve ever met, and that is not restricted to horse racing. If Zenyatta were to be voted Horse of the Year, despite not having run against the boys, I would have no problem with it.

It’s tough trying to compare these two sensational horses. It’s just, as of now, I am trying to convince myself she did enough to knock Curlin off this throne, having run all her races but one on a synthetic surface in California, while Curlin ran well on fast dirt, slop, grass, and even on the Pro-Ride, while racing in Dubai, New York, Kentucky, and California – arguably the three biggest stages in the world for an American-based horse. Being undefeated certainly will help her cause.

So, that’s where I stand right now, which is in limbo. Whoever is voted Horse of the Year, congratulations, you deserve it. Oh yes, and that goes for Big Brown, too.

Where to Begin

Blood-Horse Staff — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:37:00 GMT

How does one even begin to comment on this year’s wild and crazy Breeders’ Cup? Pro-Ride form, the absence of any injuries, the filly phenomena, the European butt-whipping, Santa Anita, Horse of the Year, ESPN’s new camera shots? That’s just for starters.

Before anything, I must say I cannot recall a more enjoyable two days of racing, whether you felt they were formful or not. And never have I encountered friendlier people at a racetrack than I did at Santa Anita, from the security guards to the mutual tellers and everyone in between.

When the Breeders’ Cup announced they were expanding to 14 races, I like many people felt it was diluting the event. I no longer think that way. It was great seeing seven-furlong filly sprinters, juvenile turf horses, turf sprinters, dirt milers, and stayers all have a chance in the spotlight. Why not? They deserve the opportunity and they put on a show. It was great seeing trainers like Dave Donk, Gary Sherlock, Pete Anderson, Greg De Gannes, Bret Calhoun, and Dale Capuano given the opportunity to show off their horses in racing’s biggest event.

I was also against the Ladies Day concept, and I still have reservations about it. The Breeders’ Cup was extremely fortunate to have a buzz horse like Zenyatta to give it a big push. They can’t count on that every year. It’s OK in California where you don’t have to worry about possibly running on a fast track one day and sloppy track the other, which could severely compromise voting for Horse of the Year. And it’s still not fair to those who could only come on Saturday to be deprived of seeing Zenyatta. And you know she was viewed by far less people on TV. With that said, the Breeders’ Cup did have Zenyatta this year, and my initial reaction was: how fantastic to give a magnificent filly like this her own day and not have to share it with the Classic or the Turf. She was queen for the day and received all the attention, accolades, and coverage she deserved. So, at least for now, the concept worked.

As much of a proponent of dirt tracks as I am, I must say in defense of Pro-Ride, we needed a safe Breeders’ Cup, and in that respect, the track delivered big-time. After watching the first day’s races, I never went into any of Saturday’s races with apprehension. Walking on the track, there is so much bounce to it, and the horses’ feet don’t slide on it they way do on the dirt. That is going to help some horses, like those with large frames, long strides, and big kicks, which is why we saw so many explosive moves on the turn by horses similar in physical stature and running style. It also obviously helped the European horses, not so much that it acts more like turf, which is part of it, but that there is so little kickback, something the Euros are not used to when they come here.

As for the form itself, you couldn’t help but marvel at the spectacular performances by Zenyatta, Stardom Bound, Midnight Lute, and Ventura. Favorites, however, won only four of the 14 races. But when you’re dealing with so many top-class horses that statistic is deceiving. Three favorites finished second, including Square Eddie, who was only favored by 10 cents over the winner Midshipman, and two finished third. So nine of the 14 favorites finished in the top three and 12 of the 14 finished in the top four. Amazingly, five of the beaten favorites were Europeans, which shows what bettors thought of the American horses. The only U.S.-trained favorite to finish up the track was Well Armed in the Dirt Mile.

As for Europe’s top two male milers – Raven’s Pass and Henrythenavigator – finishing one-two in the Classic, you can analyze it all you want, but the bottom line is that, with the exception of Curlin, the American horses were slow, if you go by the various speed figures. Raven’s Pass and Henry both were brilliant, consistent, classy,and game horses, and Raven’s Pass had more of a dirt pedigree than grass. When he galloped over the track on Thursday he glided over it. And he had worked brilliantly over the all-weather track in England before shipping here.

After watching the monster moves on the far turn by the long-striding horses, it would have seemed a perfect set-up for Curlin. And he did make the dramatic move everyone was expecting. Why he didn’t sustain is the big question. There will be numerous theories. Was he not able to get enough push off the synthetic surface after changing leads? If he hated it, he likely would not have put in the run he did. So, maybe it’s somewhere in between. It actually was reminiscent of the big run on the turn Bernardini made in the 2006 Classic and then couldn’t sustain it over a Churchill Downs surface some horses just don’t get hold of as well as other surfaces. It happens. Or could it be that Curlin simply isn’t as dominant as he was last year? After all, this was by far the toughest field he’s faced all year. This wasn’t beating Wanderin Boy, Past the Point, Einstein, and Barcola. Curlin has had a long year, and he ran as hard and as fast as he could on this day and was beaten only 2 3/4 lengths for all the money, and a neck for third. His time of about 1:59 4/5 was the fastest mile and a quarter he’s ever run. He got beat, period, and it serves little purpose to try to figure out why. Horses lose, even the best ones. Some have suggested that with only one serious five-furlong work in four weeks, he was a short horse, especially for a race over a synthetic surface. Let's just say I am not about to disagree with them.

The question now is: how many Europeans are going to come out of the woodwork next year trying to earn big bucks on the Pro-Ride surface?

I don’t buy the premise that the Pro-Ride surface gave the Europeans an advantage. Sure, it leveled the playing field, but what’s wrong with that? It’s still our surface, in our country, in our hot weather, and we still couldn’t beat them. I think it’s great that the Euros did so well in the Classic, and in the Marathon. But they didn’t win the Juvenile or the Juvenile Fillies or the Dirt Mile. Sixties Icon could only finish fifth as the 7-5 favorite in the Marathon. Duke of Marmalade was ninth in the Classic. Bushranger was 11th in the Juvenile at 5-1.Pursuit of Glory finished 11th in the Juvenile Fillies at 7-1. Let’s just face the fact that Raven’s Pass and Henrythenavigator are two gifted horses who simply were better than our horses on this day when the playing field was level.

What is disturbing is that yet another European horse with only one start in this country (Turf winner Conduit) likely will win the Eclipse Award for male grass horse, just as Daylami, Kalanisi, Fantastic Light, and High Chaparral (twice) did from 1999 to 2003. The American grass horses have had too many lean years in the past decade for it to be a coincidence. Only the head of Dancing Forever prevented a European 1-2-3 sweep of the Turf, which at least isn’t as bad the 1-2-3-4 Euro sweep in the 2005 Turf.

As I’m writing this, I have only watched several of the races on videotape. There is no one more opposed to numerous camera cuts and weird angles than I am. So, when I heard about ESPN’s many cuts on the first day I watched when I returned home with anticipated dread. And I have to say, I was shocked at how much I enjoyed the coverage. While I’m sure there will be detractors, I actually loved it, and can’t believe I’m saying that. There were some great angles that gave the race a sense of action and provided different perspectives without the audience missing much. This is the way they do it in Europe and Dubai, and it worked here. The ground-level shot, while not as revealing as the conventional shot in two-turn races, gave the start of the race an exciting look to it, and you could still see well enough which horses broke poorly and who broke quickly.

The switch to the overhead on the first turn was revealing and gave the viewer a good look at who was where. The backstretch camera following the horses was my favorite, giving the race a European/Dubai look, and for the most part you could see the entire field and where each horse was and how far off the rail. The return to the overhead on the far turn was just long enough to see who was making their move and who was in trouble. Fortunately, the timing was dead-on in the return to the conventional shot, where you could pick up the action. The quarter pole and stretch shots were close enough to see the action and far enough away to see all the horses making their moves. And the close-up gallop-out shots gave it all a good finishing touch. How about the shot of Midnight Lute galloping out? I assume the rest of the races were as good as the Classic, Ladies Classic, Sprint, Turf, and Juvenile Fillies; the races I have watched so far. The Sprint in particular and the iso replays were breathtaking to watch. So, kudos to ESPN for a fantastic presentation.

One final note about Midnight Lute. Taking nothing away from the other spectacular winners, but watching the Sprint after getting home, I was blown away. That was one of the most awe-inspiring performances I have ever witnessed. He proved he is indeed a freak to do what he did. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a stride like that in 40 years. For him to go that wide and run down Fatal Bullet as quickly as he did was simply amazing. Fatal Bullet’s trainer, Reade Baker, summed it up best. After the race he went on the track with a dazed look on his face and said to no one in particular, “I can’t believe my horse just ran six furlongs in 1:07 2/5 and got beat.”

And what a training job by Bob Baffert. I normally would never vote for a horse with only one win and a 10th-place finish for an Eclipse Award, but not only would Midnight Lute be a deserving champion sprinter (with a case to be made for Benny the Bull), he is one of the most exciting sprinters we’ve seen. He’s won stakes on Pro-Ride (Santa Anita), Polytrack (Keeneland), a sloppy dirt track (Monmouth), and a fast dirt track (Saratoga). And he won on the old Del Mar dirt track.

That’s plenty for now. The next blog will get into the Horse of Year ramifications and other Breeders' Cup tidbits.

Tradition!

Blood-Horse Staff — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:32:00 GMT

Scenario: Square Eddie wins the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile. Actually, you can add Street Hero and Midshipman to that scenario. Question: Do you vote for the Juvenile/Breeders’ Futurity winner or the Juvenile/Norfolk winner or the Juvenile/Del Mar Futurity winner – none of whom have ever run on dirt – for the Eclipse Award or do you vote for the Hopeful/Champagne winner, Vineyard Haven, who won both impressively and became only the second horse in 26 years to sweep the two most historic 2-year-old stakes in America?

The answer for each Eclipse voter will be based on the relevance they put on synthetic surfaces, and the result will reveal a great deal regarding the mindset of the voters.

So, will victories over a synthetic surface in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile and either the Breeders’ Futurity, Norfolk or Del Mar Futurity merit a national championship over dominating scores in the Hopeful and Champagne? The traditionalist with a sense of history likely will vote for Vineyard Haven, which is the way this traditionalist is leaning heavily towards, unless something incredibly monumental happens in the Juvenile to make me change my mind. So, I’m holding off until then. Yes, traditionalists may be regarded by some as old fogeys with old ideas, but in this day and age we need to cling on to some semblance of tradition.

Racing on synthetic surfaces still is in its infantile stages, and until we can understand how it affects the sport in regard to producing true champions and to what degree it affects the breed and form, we should think carefully before we raise it to a plateau so lofty that it determines championships. We don’t even know how form on different synthetic surfaces – Polytrack, Cushion Track, Pro-Ride, and Tapeta – relate to each other.

This in no way is meant to detract from the above-mentioned synthetic horses. I couldn’t be happier for Square Eddie’s connections Paul Reddam and Doug O’Neill, two of the nicest guys in the sport, and would love to see them at Churchill Downs next spring with Square Eddie, who was devastating in the Breeders’ Futurity. But trying to compare Square Eddie and Vineyard Haven is like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. At this point in time I am unable to do it, so I would have to lean toward Vineyard Haven…again, at this point. But it would take an absolutely monstrous performance in the Juvenile by any of the three to get me to even think about changing my mind. I realize to some this may sound narrow-minded, but no more so than the trainers who refuse to send horses to the Breeders’ Cup because of the synthetic surface. No more so than the trainers who send their horses and afterward blame the surface if their horse runs an uncharacteristically poor race. No more so than the bettors who wager on the Breeders’ Cup as if it’s going to be a normal series of races and then realize that it’s not a normal series of races as they’re ripping up their tickets.

The Breeders’ Cup “dirt” races may very well turn out to be extremely formful and I will reserve judgment until it’s over. But I will approach it with apprehension until then.

Horses like Zenyatta, Colonel John, Well Armed, Tiago, and Student Council among others all have established good form on both dirt and synthetic. But what about a classy grade I-winning mare like Unbridled Belle never picking her feet up in the Spinster Stakes (gr. I), or Hystericalady, a dominating winner on dirt, but 0-for-five on synthetic and having to struggle with Santa Teresita to finish second in the Lady’s Secret? Those are just two of many such cases. Then there is a filly winning the Alcibiades off only two grass starts, and grass fillies dominating the Spinster. Where in the world did Carriage Trail’s performance come from? There no indication in the slightest she was going to do what she did. Who runs 1 1/8 miles in 1:46 3/5, closing the last eighth in :12 flat while drifting across the entire track and finishing closer to the outside rail? Some of these races are just plain weird and do not resemble dirt racing. The Goodwood Stakes field, all within five lengths of each other and spread out across the track in the stretch, looked as if they were coming down the straightaway at Newmarket.

On the opposite end, what about a top-class California graded stakes winner (on dirt) like Arson Squad finishing out of the money in all seven of his races on a synthetic surface and then finally being sent east and winning the Meadowlands Cup by 2 1/2 lengths in his first start back on dirt?

It’s all trial and error right now. While Santa Anita bettors likely have not had many problems deciphering form because all the horses have been racing primarily over synthetic tracks, what is going to happen when horseplayers all over America have to solve the Breeders’ Cup puzzle, with dozens of horses shipping in from the east and Europe with no synthetic experience?

That is why when determining champions this year, just remember Websters’ definition of the word synthetic: “Not real or genuine.”

That’s not my definition. Talk to the people who called the surface synthetic. I’m talking strictly about form here and what is “real and genuine;” not about safety. The latter no doubt is the more important of the two, but studies in that area still are inconclusive, especially considering the fatal breakdown comparison between Saratoga (none on dirt during the races and none reported in the morning) and Del Mar (a total of eight, most of them during the races). Once they prove for certain that synthetic surfaces are safer, then we’ll be happy with those findings and cope the best we can with all its foibles.

If Curlin or Big Brown win the Classic in their synthetic track debut, it would enhance or at least confirm their greatness, whether due to their talent or versatility. If neither perform well and are beaten by a synthetic specialist like Go Between, is that going to prove anything?

That is why this year’s Breeders’ Cup should be fascinating, challenging, bewildering, and hopefully entertaining. But should it really be about deciding championships? That is a question each of us will have to answer.

Breeders' Cup Ramblings

cdawahare — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:53:00 GMT

OK, I've finally figured it out. I have figured out how to deal with this year's and next year's Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita as it relates to Eclipse Awards.

After all, there are several possible scenarios this year that could have a major impact on the various championship categories. For instance, what if either Mast Track or Go Between wins the Classic, or run one-two, as they did in the Hollywood Gold Cup? Let's go one better; what if one of them wins the Pacific Classic, Goodwood, and BC Classic? That, in many cases, would be sufficient to earn Horse of the Year, especially if you also have a win in the Hollywood Gold Cup or seconds in the Hollywood Gold Cup and Santa Anita Handicap, as Go Between does. But that's not going to happen. I just don't see many people voting for a synthetic surface horse for Horse of the Year no matter what they accomplish.

Regardless what these two horses do, or any horses for that matter, Curlin will be the champion older horse. Now, let's say Colonel John wins Saturday's Swaps, and then adds the Goodwood and BC Classic to go along with his win in the Santa Anita Derby. He still has no shot at the 3-year-old title, which will go to Big Brown. He will have to win the Travers and the Classic, with Big Brown losing the remainder of his races, to have a shot at it.

So, does that mean if Big Brown should happen to miss the Classic or simply doesn't handle the synthetic track, this year's Classic will prove to be a meaningless race to everyone except the winning connections and those who bet on him? Sadly, the answer is yes. That is how important Big Brown is to the Classic. How do I know this? If Go Between wins the Classic, and no disrespect to him, can anyone picture Darley, Three Chimneys, and Lane's End shoving each other out of the way trying to purchase his breeding rights?

At this point in racing history, championships should not be decided on a synthetic surface. That brings us to my brilliant idea. Considering the Breeders' Cup's ravenous appetite and how it is gorging itself on new races, and considering the addition of new Eclipse Awards to accommodate the profusion of Breeders' Cup winners, why not add several more championships to give the synthetic specialists their due?

Now, we all know a synthetic surface horse is somewhere between a dirt horse and a turf horse. These are generally second-tier turf horses, not good enough to compete at the highest level, and either second-tier dirt horses or horses who have never even laid eyes on a dirt track. Yes, there are horses like Student Council and Tiago, or the 3-year-old Gayego, who have won major stakes on both dirt and synthetic, but they are in the minority.

So, let's just say Go Between or Mast Track - two typical synthetic/turf horses - run the table the rest of the year. What do you do with them when it comes to year-end honors? Simple, you make up a new Eclipse Award. How's this? Champion Dirf Horse (that's right, something between dirt and turf). This way, they can join the long procession of 2008 Eclipse Award winners without intruding on the major award contenders like Curlin and Big Brown.

OK, so now you ask yourself, what about Colonel John, who has a sixth-place finish in the Kentucky Derby as his only attempt on dirt? He obviously loves synthetic surfaces, but supposedly is not as good on the dirt (although I'm still not sold on that) and has never been on the turf. So, you can't give him the Dirf Award. In his case, as with others who are proven only on synthetic surfaces, we offer the Latex Award. This way, we can honor horses like Colonel John, who supposedly love only the feel of balloon fragments under their feet. But there is still the Travers to expand his horizons, and the belief here is that he handles the dirt just fine, despite the Kentucky Derby, in which he actually put in a big move around the turn.

With these awards, every horse will get his or her due, and it would allow the Breeders' Cup Classic to have at least some championship implications. And as for having a legitimate Horse of the Year showdown, Churchill Downs could then boost the purse of the Clark Handicap if they so desire. And what about the top-class milers who flop in the BC Dirt (?) Mile? They can flock to Aqueduct four weeks later for the Cigar Mile to determine who really is the best miler in the country.

Now that we've resolved that disturbing aspect of the Breeders' Cup, I have one more issue that needs to be discussed. What does John Shirreffs and Jerry and Ann Moss do about Zenyatta? They already have Tiago for the Classic, and he is capable on any given day of winning a race of that caliber. Shirreffs has already stated that running against the colts is not in the equation. But let's say Zenyatta continues her unbeaten streak, goes back to blowing away her foes, and looks invincible heading into the Breeders' Cup.

Do you run her against colts in what is likely to be a so-so field (depth-wise) in the Classic in front of a sellout crowd and highlight the best filly in the country to TV audiences around the country or do you run her on Friday in the Distaff (sorry, for blog purposes I cannot bring myself to say Ladies Classic) in front of one-third or one-half the crowd and a negligible TV audience? How many people are going to take off from work that day to come to the track or rush home to watch the races on TV?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against change, and these new changes this year could turn out just fine. I hope they do. But everything is being done so quickly and in such excess. Can't we at least wait to see how last year's changes work out on a nice sunny day as opposed to last year's disaster before smothering everyone with additional races? Here is a test the Breeders' Cup can conduct. Put five committee members in separate rooms and give them five seconds to name the winners of last year's Friday Breeders' Cup races. If they can't do it, you keep the number of Friday races the same until they can. Then, and only then, can you add more races. Better still, you can also give them an additional five seconds and have them name the new races this year. If they can't do it, scrap them until they can.

The reason I can't bring myself to say or write Ladies Classic, besides it sounding like a golf tournament, is that you already have a Classic that is open to males and females, and horses are not ladies, they are horses. Distaff designates female as much as Ladies, so why change after 24 years? What is with this new obsession to keep changing names until its political correctness makes us want to barf? Webster defines "distaff" simply as a "female," and it defines "lady" as a "woman." So, the Breeders' Cup in its divine wisdom determined that they'd rather have a race for women than females.

If Tiago and Zenyatta win both races, Shirreffs and the Mosses will be victorious in the Classic and Ladies Classic. Sort of takes away from the power of the name Classic doesn't it? "Oh, you only won the Classic? Well," I won the Ladies Classic (and with a horse no less) -- twice as many words, must be more important. At least I know what kind of Classic I won. What kind of Classic did you win?" Come on, Breeders' Cup, it's the Distaff, period. Stop thinking so much and leave the darn name alone. If it was good enough for Personal Ensign and Lady's Secret it's good enough now.

I will go into this year's Breeders' Cup with an open mind -- hey, we do have a bunch of turf races. If all the horses come back safely I will be happy, and that will take precedence over the results, the surface, the silly name changes, and the plethora of races, even if many of them do turn out to be meaningless in the grand scheme of things. But after the relief of knowing that all the horses and jockeys have returned sound and healthy, all the other stuff mentioned above will begin to sink in. That's the part I'm not looking forward to.